I am sorry I didn't want to take the time to get into this seeing the mindset of most on this site is fixed. You are correct with your line of believers before Rome. I know many "Reformed" do not accept B.H. Carrol's work, the Trail of Blood, but he mentions these groups. But the question remains:
Reformed from what? And why didn't the Reformers join the already existing Church?

Question: where was the Church before the Reformation? Rome could not have been a valid Church just gone astray. And if those who protested Rome left, why didn't they join themselves with the already existing church?

No use arguing though, you're settled on your opinion, as you are sure I'm settled on mine.

There needs to be verbal confession. The prodigal came to himself, but it led him to go to his father and confess what he had done.

It was Luther who said:
"...they (Anabaptists) are not only blasphemous but also seditious men, let the sword exercise its rights over them. For it is the will of God, that he shall have judgement who resistith the power." (Arthur B. Strickland, Roger WIlliams (Boston: The Judson Press, 1919) p.72 ) Obviously he did not know the will of God!!!

And it was John Clark Ridpath, Methodist Historian, who stated:
"I should not readily admit that there was a Baptist church as far back as 100 A.D., although without doubt there were Baptist churches then, as all Christians were Baptists.
-W.A. Jarrell, Baptist Church Perpetuity or History(Dallas, TX: By the Author, 1894)
Quote taken from "The Coming Destruction of the Baptist People"
James A. Beller, 2005.

So what line was it you didn't like?

Becuase it is a fact that Calvin was a murderer of Baptists that rejected his doctrine.

If someone is on death row, and someone who is innocent comes forward to take his place, who says that if the death row inmates rejects the offer, that the one who offered is not worthy of praise. Does it lessen the credibility of the offerer?
Maybe that is how big of a sacrifice Jesus made.
You are throwing the baby out with the bath water. Either he knew who would be saved, so he died for them, or he didn't know, and just did it any way. Why couldn't he shed his blood for all, AND also know who would receive him? How much more condemnation the rejecting world will have at the judgement knowing that they could have been saved, but chosed their sin instead. And, what is the point of a judgement when the one's being judged were made to do what they did. It's like judging a cow for not flying and saying "bad cow, didn't you know I wanted you to fly, but didn't want you to?" How twisted. So the lost world will be judged for rejecting Christ, although they had no means to do otherwise?

Huh

I think you missed my point.

And I didn't say anything about an enemy of Jesus Christ, I said an enemy of Calvinists. And if you say that people on this site don't consider us
(IFB non-calvinists) enemies, then you are lying to yourself.

The Church "saves" no one but it is the Churches responsibility to get them to the point of salvation, again, through preaching.

These were things to authenticate his message, not an evidence of salvation or the purpose of the Church. Remember "the Jew require a sign..." and he came to Israel first. And we have no evidence of Jesus speaking in tongues like some define it (although he did - because tongues simply means languages, and he most likely spoke several languages, as did Paul), so if we were to do what Jesus did (according to your observation) then the Church should not be involved with the tongues movement.